TO CONTINUE...

     Gandalf's description of how the One Ring grants its bearer immortality feels like such an apt description for much else in life.

Like the other Great Rings of Power, [the One Ring] would extend the lifespan of its owner indefinitely, but that person...would not grow or obtain more life, but would merely continue, until every minute was an unbearable weariness.

     The more I read about Tolkien's mythology, the more I find it such a remarkable way of looking at things. Although we are not Valar nor Maiar, I find the idea that we have within us a native strength (or power) which can be spent to our fortune or peril an interesting one.
     The great evil ones, Melkor and Sauron, spent their spirits in envy and hate in their respective attempts to dominate the very matter of Earth and its inhabitants, growing weaker over time. Once mighty and seemingly invincible, they would, over time, lose their ability to shapeshift, no longer be able to create new things to use against the existing order (instead being able to only make parodies and corruptions of works already made), and take on wounds which would no longer heal.
     The great maia, Sauron, would impart much of his remaining native strength into the One Ring so that it would be able to dominate the other nineteen rings of power. When he wore it, the One Ring made him even stronger than before but should the ring be destroyed, it would take with it that native strength Sauron had poured into it so there was a risk involved for any spirit who wished to go against the natural order of things.

     It makes me think of how we live our lives and the values and desires we place in things and in people. I feel like I have invested much of my native strength in the wrong girls and it has left me considerably weaker for my troubles. The last time I felt my native strength increasing was when I was in college back in late 1998/early 1999...but mostly in 1998.
     I had met many new friends (even girls who found me desirable) and for perhaps the only time in my life, had a near-daily exposure to love and acceptance. I felt a part of something bigger than me for the only time in my life.  If I were somehow able to quantify my native strength and add up the percentages of it placed into other people and things and that which is still left in me, the number would be greater than 100% mostly for that time but also for times in my past like it (such as when I started getting to know my Best Friend and other friends both remaining and lost in my life).
     My last happy New Year was the changeover from 1999 to 2000. So far, the 21st century has held little to no happiness for me and as I now find myself well into it. I am also less than ten years away from the pivot point whereby I become a 21st century man (that is, soon I will have existed longer in the 21st century than I did in the 20th...another of my weird thoughts/realizations).

     But I know I squandered a large part of myself in the First One. It felt only natural and I did so out of ignorance. While foolish in retrospect, how was I to know at the time she wasn't "the one"? First love is foolish love much as is all young love. Still...I miss her and the nervous energy she imparted on me that I was then able to transform into creative and artistic pursuits like drawing, poetry, and most proudly, a constructed language.
     The First One would come to be known to me as a personification of idealization. She is what attraction means to me and what it means to be in love. All those who have followed (and even those who preceded) are compared to her, being either greater or lesser. In a mythological sense, she would be the physical manifestation of a god, specifically of Aphrodite. In a different and more modern sense I would describe her as a "genetic attraction", which was most definitely eugenic in nature as I recall myself, even as a young teenager, wanting to merge my DNA with her own as if our respective DNAs would result in a more superior human than she already was. That's a strange thought I admit and to this day, while I would most certainly prefer to do so the, uh..."natural" or "fun" way, I would be happy to have her accept my DNA via artificial insemination just to bring about that genetic fulfillment.

     Smaller parts of me would be invested in nearly a dozen other girls and more still in lost friends, but the next great investment was in Digby, the source of many downer posts in this blog. I saw in her a salvation of sorts. She appeared to me as the actual "one" I had been spending my life looking for (and this time a human right from the start rather than the fleshy goddess that was the First One) as I now had many more years of experience and working knowledge of who I am and what I had wanted. I felt able to see our compatibility but ultimately, I had deceived myself...
     Don't get me wrong. I still believe with all my heart that Digby is right for me. It's just...what I never considered and what would thus be my downfall, was that it never occurred to me just how cruel nature is when it comes to love. I made the mistake of believing, because I had never properly had it contradicted prior, that compatibility is more of a scalar than what it truly is, a vector.
      You see, compatibility has a direction to it: it's not a universal number or quality. Digby is good enough (maybe even ideally so)...but only for me. But I am not perfect for her. It seems an impossible thought but it's sadly so very true.
      For the longest time I went through life believing that if you found a person you were compatible with that it was only natural that they too would be compatible with you. It might take some convincing, but I truly believed compatibility was like an equation. In this case, different sets of numbers that added up to the same result (a simplified example being 4+5 = 108÷12 ...seemingly different in all ways but nevertheless, their underlying nature, that they are both manifestations of 9, is the same). But no, compatibility is not a simple equation...it is a vector. The direction compatibility moves in matters (like how whether a targeted item in a supermarket will appear on the left side or right side of an aisle depends on the direction you enter said aisle) and resultant vectors cannot be found simply by adding two (or more) vectors together.
     The maddening result of all this grief is the knowledge that you can be great for someone but that you, in turn, are not necessarily great for them. It is a seeming defiance of logic but it is most assuredly true and a depressing truth at that. Perhaps if I had learned that lesson at an earlier age...

     Digby would become the personification of desire in many, if not all, of its manifestations and especially representative of my desire to do right by and for a woman; to be her one and only; to be the father, and properly so, to her children; to give of myself that she and my progeny might experience a life most fitting for them. Digby was truly a dream given form...
     Now if only I might find that (as of yet unknown) Third One who is this time as compatible with me as I am with her.

     However, to get back to my opening statements, I feel I have been living a life without purpose and I have been living this way largely for the last three to seven years depending on your reckoning and arguably I have been this way since finding the First One back in 1992 as fulfillment is not something that would ever be known to me.
     Much of my native strength has been spent. It has left me feeling weak and my spirit fragile. It takes so much time now to find even the smallest amount of will to make a move and such strength is all too easily spent resulting in months of recovery from even the slightest of setbacks...time I really don't have anymore as my youth has been gone for some time now.
     For the time being, I find myself bound spiritually to my Best Friend but she is not enough. She is like family and family does not represent the future nor does family represent change, whether the family we're born into or the family we choose. Love must ultimately manifest either literally in the form of children or spiritually in the form of a legacy which will outlive our physical forms. Our genes demand from us immortality. For me personally, that satisfaction requires a yin for my yang to be the means, undeniably female, for manifesting that immortality. But I have been denied such satisfaction...
     And I feel that's what living with purposelessness is: it is merely survival, not life. The food I eat, the water I drink, and the air I breathe extend my life but mere acts of survival do not grow or obtain for me more life. They permit me only to continue and every day the burden of continuing makes me feel heavier and that heaviness is most certainly wearisome. It is not yet unbearable and while I have no intention of "doing" anything about it, it does leave me wondering just how much more my body can handle before it decides it has had enough or will I find my continuance, my merely surviving, to be corrupting like that of Sméagol as he became Gollum under the One Ring's influence and living on only as a shadow of my former, once hopeful, self,

     ...a living mockery of a man...

AN UNPUBLISHED DRAFT NOW BEING PUBLISHED...

ADDENDUM: I wrote the following thoughts on December 17, 2013. I'm in no mood to make these drafts into coherent posts. These were just some free-form thoughts that I had intended to go back to no more than a few days later but never got back to. The momentum is gone, not only from this post but perhaps this blog itself. I don't know how it would've turned out otherwise, but here's a sample of how I think...

~~~~~~~~~

The wall separating our working lives from our private lives has become anywhere from translucent to transparent thanks to the internet. I find it strange that there has been no mass protest in this country to oppose the thinning of this separation. It has allowed employers to keep an unreasonable amount of tabs on their employees through direct spying and snitching.

We are told to live in a state of constant fear as a result. Do not post what you would not want your boss to find out they say. People, especially teachers, have been fired for behavior done prior to their professional lives and during their professional lives even though it was all engaged in during their free time.

The concept of free time seems to be fast becoming a "thing of the past" and this terrifies me. Imagine if the wall separating church and state were again made transparent and you had to join the state religion. To stand up for your beliefs would cost you your livelihood (at best) or even your life (at worst). Your only alternative choice is to defy yourself and what you feel is right. No one would stand for that anymore knowing their beliefs could one day become the "wrong" beliefs. It's why the government in the Constitution is forbidden from sponsoring a state church...but we allow employers to effectively sponsor employer-based churches (example related to ACA-Obamacare) whereby the employer's beliefs are imposed upon their (usually female) employees. This is decried, but the loss of Freedom of Speech ("controversial" opinion posts) and Right to Peaceably Assemble (photos from a bachelorette party let's say) is not.

We are told we are now always on the clock. Everything we say represents our company. No longer are we free citizens. Accepting a paycheck is tantamount to checking your U.S. citizen rights at the door. Accepting a paycheck also means being on the clock for 24 hours while only getting paid for 8.

Related things: why is e-mail considered a separate thing from mail? Does no one who is not a legislator or HR director think that e-mail is not deserving of the same privacy protection as paper envelopes? The same applies to calls made by cellphone versus those made by landline. Does anyone besides those two groups actually feel cellphone calls are okay to tap without a warrant. GPS also applies, as does EZ-Pass. Why have we tolerated the thinning of these walls?

Rage began from #12 unpodcast "Your Tweets Are Not Your Own"

Controversial speech and ideas are the ones which need the most protection but they are the first to get you fired...

Link back to prior posts about teachers/students getting in trouble and NRA-type group for 1st Amendment.

It opens up the possibility of a world whereby employees must belong to the same political party as their boss and vote their boss's way too. Employees should have the same religion and tastes as their employer. I'm curious, if a man working for Coca-Cola was spotted drinking a Pepsi at a party, is that grounds for his termination...or even being associated with Pepsi (assuming he's not drinking any)? An employee who is on the clock is a worker, but off the clock is a potential customer. An employer should want his employees to also be customers, but should that not be earned rather than assumed? Is an employee allowed to consume the products and services of a rival? Why is employee behavior both on and off the clock subject to the morality of his employer, or more generally (when snitching is involved) why is employee behavior subject to the capricious whims of the most conservative person in the room? Why are the most conservative people (or financially well off) the sole arbiters of what is right and wrong?

Yet strangely, none of this has provoked rioting.  The solution seems to be unionization and guilds (for professionals). Protection via a union and tenure may be the only way to protect the rights of U.S. citizens from being taken away by their unelected, non-governmental bosses. Because after all, one day your boss might be liberal and accepting and your next boss could be a stick-in-the-mud conservative. Is that any different than having a laissez-faire king who is tolerant of any religious expression being replaced upon his death by a new king demanding the citizenry now all be say Protestant? Is it fair? I don't know. But so long as earning money to make a living is not optional I don't see how threatening a person's livelihood for expressing their 1st Amendment rights (or any Constitutional rights) is any more fair or in any way American. Job retention should be determined solely by competence.

RATIOS & MINIMUM WAGE...

     In yet another article talking about the high cost of living in states like New Jersey, the comments section blazes with arguments about whether the minimum wage needs to be raised or the educational level of the citizenry with each side ready with its talking points and no hope of a consensus ever being reached.

     I had a thought. Why not let math be our guide?

     It's simple really (and yes I'm aware that simple answers fly in the face of complicated situations like these) and my intent is to use it as a guide post for further debate, not a be-all/end-all solution.

     The article focuses on the cost of living in New Jersey for a family of four (the typical metric) and what that cost would be to barely get by. You'll do better on this amount if you manage to avoid emergency expenses for health and transportation but still, an amount was given. In this case, the answer comes in at almost exactly $80,000 a year for a family of four.
     So if you're going to have the traditional nuclear family with one stay-at-home parent, then a living wage job pays $80,000 a year. But that might be a bit too idealistic in this day and age where everybody is expected to work so it instead could be thought of as two $40,000 a year jobs (one for each parent). Taken from the latter perspective, a living wage job in New Jersey pays $40,000 a year.

     For the record, I make about $28,000 a year so an extra $12,000 would go a long way toward improving my life. I get by because I don't drive, I am very careful with my money, and most importantly, I have neither been sick nor injured enough to require hospitalization since I was 2½. But luck is not a game plan for life.

     Anyways, as for whether or not the minimum wage should be raised to reflect actual living costs in New Jersey (and elsewhere in the country to their respective rates), I think using a simple ratio would prove sufficient to answer the question.

     My question is this: What is the number of jobs in New Jersey which pay a living wage divided by the number of people who need a job which pays a living wage? I don't have the necessary information at hand to answer that question. However...

     If the ratio is less than one, then I think it would strongly suggest the need to raise the minimum wage.

     However, if the ratio is greater than one, then it would strongly suggest the population needs to be better educated. 

CRUELTY IN THE SERVICE OF MERCY...

     Apparently it is "World Autism Day". That means the timing of this entry may or may not be intentional. I had the idea for it a couple of days ago when reading an editorial in the New York Times written by a divorced mother of a normal daughter and autistic son who was once married to a man whose quirks she felt seemed mildly autistic.

     Anyways, she was mentioning how her son was like a force of nature: destructive in his ways, but not maliciously so. Like something to endure, rather than resist and dominate. I didn't really care about her personal story but I read on anyway because the autistic state of mind is an interesting one if only as a casual curiosity. I am continually amazed at how slight differences in genetic expression can lead to such dramatically different results. The difference between a normal and autistic human must be minuscule because they look the same, but behaviorally, they're from two different worlds. I would not be surprised if even the most obvious of birth defects (like missing limbs) also arise from tiny, seemingly insignificant alterations in the genetic code.

     But even that is a deviation. My Best Friend has worked with autistics so I have her experience as well, an experience which she did not share with me wearing rose-tinted glasses. Some of them, much like the boy in that article, are highly disruptive and destructive (both self- and outwardly directed); barely able to learn (while others still were utterly devoid of any signs of humanity). The people who care for them are in constant fear of what little thing will be next to set them off. Once they are set off, all sorts of containment protocol goes into effect, each tailored to the individual so it's not like there's a codebook you can buy. I'll admit I know little of the subject but it seems autistic people have difficulty dealing with changes to their environment. They're "Lords of Predictability". I don't know why this is so but any change or deviation from a routine is cause for outbursts.
     I guess it's that part of the brain gone berserk. We all have it, right? That little part of us that gets annoyed when things aren't or don't go the way we had expected. But we get over it, maybe carry a little grudge or a slight tantrum depending on age...but we get over it whereas autistics apparently cannot and sometimes violently so. They're fascinated by orderly and predictable things like trains and subways and will take an absorbing interest in them.

     It is this category, the one between the trainable autistics and the untreatable ones that gave me this (what will certainly be perceived of as cruel) idea.
     I found myself thinking of split-brain patients. These are people who suffer from epileptic seizures who had a special surgery to help alleviate them. I'm not sure why this works (or even if the medical community knows why either), but they will receive an operation whereby the corpus callosum, the nerves linking the two hemispheres of the brain, are severed surgically. This gives the patient a new lease on life at the price of producing what amounts to two brains. Normally the effect goes unnoticed by the person, but with controlled experiments, the hemisphere's inability to communicate with the other can produce some fascinating results which I casually sum up as "your brain would rather lie to you than admit there's a problem."
     Now, this mutilation isn't considered a problem ethically because it is done to alleviate suffering in the one who is suffering. No, my idea is different and almost certainly runs afoul of the Hippocratic Oath.

     No, I'm not suggesting euthanasia. What I was thinking was, for this group of autistics, was deliberately paralyzing them.

     Again, I'm talking about mentally disabled kids who have demonstrated that they are dangers to themselves and to others through no understanding of their own. The kid in the editorial was described as running outside to go see waxwings which had since flown off. He went out without asking, without concern for his health and safety, etc. all because he was upset he had missed out on something. All the mother could do was watch and not interrupt unless his actions became life-threatening.

     But what if his legs didn't work? He wouldn't be able to run off like that. He wouldn't be able to get out of bed without assistance instead of what he normally did which was get up and make a lot of noise in order to satisfy whatever it was that was going through his deformed mind. The kid in the editorial wasn't presented as a puncher so perhaps if he were wheelchair-bound, he would be easier to control and train. Not being able to go where his legs could take him at will might get him to at least try to calm himself down.

     While yes, this is medically unethical, is it morally unethical? While the patient would not be helped by such a mutilating surgery, the caretakers would be. Would not their stress levels be reduced allowing them to better care for their deficient child? Such induced-incapacitation would also make it more difficult for the child to ignorantly hurt himself or others through his actions, however lacking in intent to do so.
      A more dangerous child could be fully paralyzed from the neck down. This surgical mutilation could also be applied to other types of deficient children who are ignorantly dangers to themselves and others.

      I don't really have a good argument to support this idea. I don't think I necessarily need one as I know it would never be adopted. I suggest it merely out of (misplaced?) sympathy for the parents of these children. Yes, some autistics grow up to be fairly fine as their symptoms are mild and they can thus be trained to behave normally and even go on to live their lives independently of caretakers. I'm not talking about them. To paralyze such a child deliberately would be cruel.
      I just think the parents of the more disabled ones, the ones which are likely never to be independent, could benefit from having some of the burden of their undue responsibility relieved. One less thing for them to have to worry about each day. I'm not calling it a solution because it is not, but until and if a cure can be found that isn't a prenatal test, is it right to force people to take on such a difficult duty with no options whatsoever?

ROBIN HOOD WOULD APPROVE

Wealth Inequality in America"
     Now I don't know what the best solution to this problem is but it seems clear that even the best-designed progressive taxation system would do little to fix this enormous disparity. If you haven't watched that infuriating video, this is a screen cap showing wealth distribution presented in the forms of what people think would be ideal wealth distribution; what people think the wealth distribution is; and what it actually is in the United States of America.

Pictured: how little you actually matter

     It's a shocking bar graph to say the least. How frightening is it that the Top 1% in reality have more wealth than the idealized Top 20%? or that the Top 20% have almost twice as much wealth as people even thought they had? How sad to realize that the lower 40% barely show up on the top graph at all? Odds are that's where you lie.

     Now remember, this is wealth quintiles, not income. This is a measure of ownership or how much of a slice of the American pie you have. As a result, you can actually be considerably more wealthy than your income indicates, even if much of that wealth is fairly non-liquid like a house or car. Your wealth can even be negative if you owe more than you have in assets (like when you first buy a home, the bank is the primary owner...you just have a slice - or when you first get out of college, you'll have a ton of student loan debt crippling your net worth) Income quintiles can be found here as well as other data. I'll quickly list the quintiles by income so you can see where you fit:

• First Quintile (0-20%): $0 - $18,500
• Second Quintile (20-40%): $18,501 - $34,738
• Third Quintile (40-60%): $34,739 - $55,330
• Fourth Quintile (60-80%): $55,331 - $88,029
• Fifth Quintile (80-100%): $88,030 and up

    Anyways, I'm having trouble locating a simple chart that shows wealth distribution by quintile (or any percentage). If this tool found on this page is worth its salt, then the thresholds of wealth for the individual quintiles are as follows (and remember, you can have a negative net worth):

• Bottom 20% : $6 or less
• Second Quintile : $6 - $22,500
• Third Quintile: $22,500 - $119,000
• Fourth Quintile: $119,000 - $390,000
• 80-99%: $390,000- $1,460,000
• Top 1%: $1,460,000 or higher

    I find data like this interesting because while I am in the Second Quintile for income, I am in the Fourth Quintile for net worth mostly due to my lack of debt. It also wouldn't surprise me if the majority of the poor in this country are actually in the Second Quintile for wealth and that most of the bottom 20% are actually freshly educated but saddled with student loan debt or are recent purchasers of homes. It's also weird to think that if you are debt-free and have $20 in your pocket, you're worth more than 20.8% of all American households.

    Okay, the point of this stupid meandering entry was what to do about this horrific wealth inequality. Progressive taxation helps with some of it but as the charts have shown, it is now so out of whack that even if the ultra-wealthy were levied 99% taxation levels on their income, they'd still make money and wealth faster than the bottom 80%.

     I'm thinking the only way to deal with this problem is a wealth tax. I believe France already does this but not necessarily for the purpose for which I would support it. Wealth redistribution seems necessary and it doesn't have to reflect the ideal. Even as the narrator in the video agrees that the way we THINK wealth is distributed in this country is still pretty fair. So what if a wealth tax existed in order to bring the distribution of wealth in line with that of what those surveyed thought it was? The money raised would not go to fund government operations, it instead would be redistributed slowly over decades like the Earned Income Tax Credit until the distribution mostly matches that middle bar graph. Then the wealth tax would fade away as it would no longer be necessary but able to be resurrected should wealth inequality stray too much again.

     I hear the cries of socialism and blah blah blah. I don't care and also, I don't want pure socialism because that would be stupid. I want fairness of opportunity. If you squander that opportunity then fuck you. You get nothing! You lose! Good day sir!

    I look at the current situation and see one of no hope for those at the bottom. Class mobility was a feature of this country. It has practically disappeared. If wealth distribution were more equitable, there would be greater class fluidity. If America is truly about letting the best idea win, then people's fortunes should rise and fall with those ideas. Instead we have a system set up to protect those who are already wealthy. Wealth should not be a birthright but that's exactly what it has become in the United States. We have now what amounts to the aristocracy of yore and a plutocracy in practice. If you weren't born into wealth, you're practically guaranteed never to achieve it. Once poor, always poor. Take a look at any chart to show the growth in both income and wealth inequality.
     Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts was quoted as saying recently that had the minimum wage kept up with the productivity of the American worker, minimum wage would be $22 per hour. It's $7.15 now. Chew on that as you try and stretch ever further those few dollars you do make just to get by and every year you fall a little further behind because inflation goes up faster than does your wages.
     The massive wealth inequality represents more a theft from the American people than it does the destiny of capitalism. I don't like the idea of a wealth tax, but I'm not sure what else would work. I'll stick with that one for now though I have heard of an idea to tax ownership rather than income. It's not like there aren't other ideas out there...

IMAGINING A COMPROMISE...

     I'm a bit of an old-school politician in that I understand that in order to get something, you must also give something. And that process had a word: compromise. Now, as usual, there's a lot of talk about taxes and deficits going on in Washington D.C. but mostly it comes across as posturing. All talk and nothing to show for it, except of course, extreme proposals like Rep. Paul Ryan's budget which of course balances the budget on the backs of the poor and middle classes (a nebulously defined term - I'm actually middle class as per the government...imagine that! Seriously, I have to imagine that because reality certainly doesn't conform to it) and while the Democrats have an idea of their own, it doesn't appear to have much in mind when it comes to ending the idea that the government spend more than it takes in. As seriously flawed as Rep. Ryan's budget is, at least he's trying to balance the fucking thing.

     And seriously, what's wrong with that? That's how we all have to live. Why should the government get a reprieve from living within its means or asking more of its citizens if spending does need to increase? I'm cool with deficits during declared wars (i.e. a national emergency), to help fund infrastructure projects which are designed to last for decades (e.g. the interstate highway system), and to aid in lessening the pain of an economic depression...but I'm not cool with deficits being run any other time. Our excursions in Afghanistan and Iraq were not declared wars so a surtax should've been created to pay for those wars. Recessions are not depressions and they should be paid for with rainy day funds, not deficits. And yearly budgets should be paid for with an appropriate amount of tax revenue, not deficits. If you're spending more than you're taking in you are either spending too much or taxing too little...or both.

     But about the debt. As of now, it stands at 16.7 TRILLION dollars. Click on the link for an update. We should be paying that off, right? But seeing as how it only counts up, clearly we're not. I believe it was President Andrew Jackson who made it a point to pay off our debts...and he did. He even threw a party over the achievement.

     Anyways, I'm blabbing so let me get to my compromise proposal. We have the Clinton-era tax rates which were set up during good economic times and actually resulted in a couple years of surpluses. We also have the Bush-era tax rates favored by Republicans (big surprise, I know). The differences between them are not much and that's where I'd like to start.

(image source)

     The left percentage column shows the Clinton-era rates and the right percentage column shows the Bush-era tax rates.

     My proposal is this. Restore the Clinton-era tax rates but create two tiers for spending. The first tier is for annual government spending. This tier will be based on the Bush-era tax rates. In other words, the money that comes in from taxes up until those percentages is ear-marked for government spending. The revenue that comes in from the remaining percentage (i.e. the Clinton-era rate minus the Bush-era rate) is ear-marked for paying down the national debt only.

      Using the $35,500 - $86,000 quintile for reference (25% under Bush; 28% under Clinton): The revenue brought in from the 25% part is for government spending and the remaining 3% goes toward paying down the debt.

      Once the debt is paid off, the Clinton-era rates disappear leaving the Bush-era rates only and permanent. Having this set-up I feel will allow for both parties to figure out how to balance the budget and get used to spending within the Bush-era rate framework. Plus, there's incentive for both parties to work together because as soon as the debt is paid, taxes go down. It feels like a win-win for everyone.

PERMAPUPPIES AND EVERKITTENS

     I wonder if scientists ever will one day engineer dogs and cats which never grow out of their juvenile forms?

     My guess is that they would be lab creations which would be implanted into normal dogs and cats. They would be birthed and just live out their lives in their adorable awkward forms.
     I'm certain there would be moral/ethical objections, but I really can't see there not being a market for such creatures. Perhaps more so with dogs since certain breeds grow a lot more than cats ever do. I think of the difference between my Uncle's golden retriever as a little puppy and this giant hunk of muscle it has since become as a good example.

     This concept could also extend to chickens and ducks which have such adorable juvenile forms but grow up all too fast.

     I guess this could also count as a STEAL THIS IDEA to be used in a movie taking place in the future. Why not?

Try not to love them. Go ahead. I'll wait...

OVERTHINKING THINGS THEATER PRESENTS...

     I hope this is the first of many such entries. I can see the potential here :-)

     There's this new show out called Monsters High. I don't watch it but I've become aware of it because my store sells the dolls associated with the show. I'm guessing it's the typical tween drama stuff set in high school but they're monsters because that's popular right now. Just some creepy things I've noticed because I'm easily bored and rarely accept what I'm told at face value.

     I've wondered about their origins. They're all daughters of various famous movie monsters (like Dracula, the Werewolf, the Mummy, etc.), often with punny names like Draculaura and Frankie Stein (let your horrid curiosity get the best of you and read the rest of the names here --- also just noticed there are some boys in this school thanks to this link but my next point still applies) but the thing is, they all look the same age so it had me wondering just what the fuck (probably not a pun) happened in the lives (unlives?) of their fathers?

[TRIGGER WARNING - after the jump is a quick reference to sexual assault, albeit done with absurdity in mind; your call]

I AM A MEMBER OF THE BULL-MOOSE PARTY

     Probably the biggest reason I could never vote Republican is the disconnect they display when it comes to their (alleged) Christian convictions and their rabid support for individualism, especially when it comes to businesses.

     Okay, I'll admit, I am a lapsed Catholic at best, but that doesn't mean I have lost that sense of "we're all in this together" mentality that came with those Christian values which were imparted on me in my youth. I have lost some of it. I have become more selfish with my giving. I tend to limit what I do give, emotionally and especially financially, to those whom I love, care about, or at least could conceivably benefit from if I were to aid them. It is rare that I give without any of these concerns. My annual donations are typically limited to the DAV, breast cancer research, and at least $20 to the Salvation Army each year around Christmas (or if I don't encounter them, a Toys for Tots campaign will do just nicely). If I were wealthier I would certainly do more as I only need so much to live on even after an increase in lifestyle is considered in this equation. I'll admit I feel bad that I'm on the poorer end of the spectrum when considering these things.

     The point I'm making is that what feels like everything I remember from my Sunday School classes and those times I did attend Mass even semi-regularly in my youth, the lessons offered were that of charity, duty, and obligation to others. This idea that it's not just about me. The story of the widow's mite comes to mind. I suppose that's what tithing was all about. We each alone cannot attend to all the duties asked of us to and for our fellow men, but others are dedicated to these tasks and we can help them considerably through donation. If we cannot do the work ourselves, then let the money which represents value from work done, serve in our stead.
      Yet, the Republican creed centers on individualism and inherent in individualism is selfishness. The Social Darwinistic idea that the poor are so not by circumstance (or even by design) but by their own actions; that the sick should not rely on handouts, especially government handouts, to aid in their convalescence but instead should pay for it themselves and if they can't, well...that's not our problem now is it?; that we are entitled to that which we earn and are equally entitled to not have to contribute unwillingly via taxation to public functions though the military tends to get a huge pass on this one.
     The Republicans put forth this notion that we are in it for ourselves...kind of the opposite of e pluribus unum (more like ex uno unum?) and wear it like a badge of honor; as a symbol of a proud American. Now I understand the history of this nation is full of proud rugged individuals but I don't recall them ever acting alone or believing that they alone were responsible for their successes. They seemed to understand that their successes were built on the work of others. However, how does this ideology jibe with the Christianity they so brazenly wear on their sleeves?

      These are the same people who will shout out loudly when the idols of their faith are threatened. Some Presidential Dollars failed to get their edge inscriptions? Must be a plot to remove God from our money. We need "In God We Trust" on our currency to distinguish ourselves from the Godless Communists! We need an affirmation of our faith in the Lord on our coins lest history judge us a heathen nation. We need the Ten Commandments openly displayed as they are the source of our laws and the moral foundation upon which we have built our society!
     It gets ridiculous because when faced with actual things Jesus would have done like helping the poor, comforting the sick, and working together for the betterment of all, they rise up practically in arms to shout down foodstamps, welfare, universal health care, housing assistance, job retraining programs, unemployment insurance, WIC, addiction recovery programs, battered women's shelters, etc. etc. etc. No, let's fuck over the poor, our greatest obligation as Christians, because we believe that the government needs to get out of our lives all the while not setting up alternative, non-governmental programs to assist these people.
     They want smaller government; a government which does not interfere with their lives...except for when it comes to abortion and preventing the spread of contraception/sex education. Then we need government assistance!

     That's actually one thing I've never understood about faith. Why do people feel the need to forcibly save others? Is that actually a mandate explicitly stated in the Bible? I say this also in light of their desire to be rugged individuals. I have thought that while we are obligated to help one and other, our responsibility and faithfulness to the Lord is our own burden. It may take a village to care for one and other on Earth, but our path to the rewards of Heaven was meant to be a lonely one, or at least one between the individual and God. Perhaps I have been wrong? Then again, I have been guilty of apostasy since the early 1990s so what do I know? :-)
     But they say they want the government out of their lives but are perfectly content to use it to impose upon others their twisted views of their faith in an effort to spare others temptation. How can one say they are able to remain faithful and resist temptation if they do not allow temptation to exist and move freely among them?
     If pornography is wrong (for the sake of argument), how does eliminating it make one less of a sinner? If you are not supposed to view pornography as a part of your religious beliefs, how can you know if you are truly worthy if you have never had to resist its temptation? Only by having it around you can you know if you are truly worthy of your faith and more importantly, know if you are capable of resisting its temptations. Same for any other aberrant behaviors/lifestyles.


Crusade: The MOST Holy...
     This brings me around to businesses, the other big position of the Republican party. They are very cozy with big business and despite being a religious party, they expect no moral and/or ethical behavior from the businesses they support. The more businesses parasitically fuck over the communities which helped them grow strong and wealthy, the more adored they are. Businesses, despite being legal persons in the eyes of the law, are not expected to behave like their living counterparts. In fact that kind of behavior is frowned upon the cutthroat game of capitalism.
      It's not that businesses have to behave this way: it is certainly not a congenital property. We've allowed them to become this way and I have a very hard time supporting a party which espouses Christian values while supporting the very opposite kinds of behavior in the businesses they allow to generously fund their campaigns.

     Why is it wrong to expect a business to support the community which helped it grow? Why is it wrong to suggest that businesses have an obligation to enable the people they employ to enjoy fruitful and productive lives? Why is it wrong to suggest that businesses (and people and communities too) need to be stewards of their environments; that it is not all about now and us, but about the future and those yet to come as well? Why would any party of God be so eager to support the kinds of unethical and decidedly un-Christian behaviors which made the heads of our wealthiest corporations (and even the not-so-wealthy ones)?

     I'm not saying the Democrats are any better, but what I am saying is that the hypocrisy of the Republican party glares as brightly as the sun. I cannot vote for them so long as their platforms are so incongruent. And of course, their obvious abiding hatred for women...

I HATE HORROR FILMS

      I just don't like horror films. All too often they are poorly written, badly acted, too dark (absence of light too dark, not the other kind), too predictable, obviously low-budget, and (among other things) lacking in compelling characters. And they're not scary. A quick cut-away or sudden loud noise does not scary make. "It's not actually talented filmmaking if you can get the same effect from popping a bag of potato chips behind somebody's head."

      And for those assholes out there who would counter me with, (mocking tone) "Well, then why you don't you make a horror film then?" You're a fucking idiot. You don't have to be a filmmaker, an actor, a writer, a grip, a director, a producer, etc. to criticize a work. I couldn't play "You May Be Right" if my life depended on it, but I would know immediately if you missed a note, lyric, or sang off-key and I can't do either of those things either so such challenges to criticism are meaningless.

SIN TAXES

      The amount of pens I find cleaning up at work almost offends me. It's so wasteful, all that plastic and unused ink. When was the last time you used a pen up? I know I've done it, but it takes a long time unless you're writing a lot. But there's no incentive to use up pens; no incentive to make sure you don't lose them. A package of ten at work sells for $2.49 (plus tax) so basically, 25¢ a pen. That's practically nothing and inflation shows it. 25¢ is the penny of the modern age.

      Sometimes I think items like pens, pencils, paper, staples, paper clips, etc....all things which are available cheaply and in what seems to be endless supply, should have artificially inflated prices to discourage waste. There are taxes on gasoline ostensibly to maintain roads, taxes on cigarettes and alcohol (ostensibly) to cover the costs of the health associated with their abuse, etc. so why not a comparable sin tax on items which have become ridiculously cheap and use that money to let's say, fund education or job retraining since I've only named school/office supplies. Actually I'll go with job retraining given how quickly the job market has been evolving in the past thirty years.

      Nothing obscene but given their cost, even if they were all sin-taxed 100%, thus doubling their prices, the aforementioned items would still be quite affordable and it may have the added benefit of people not wasting what they have and making sure people displaced by the ever-changing job market have a means to remain competitive.

THOUGHT STARTER

      I've heard some weird things about the character Tom Bombadil from J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and when I read this paragraph on the wiki page devoted to the story, I became quite intrigued by the possibilities to storywriting the highlighted line offers:

Other possibilities (compatible with the above theory) are that he is an abstract concept; possibly the embodiment of Arda itself, a veritable "Father Nature", or some kind of 'spirit' which, unlike the Maiar, was of a non-divine nature. Not only does the Ring have no effect on him, but Tom himself seems unable to affect the Ring in return. This shows that Tom was outside the divine plan and struggle and had no position in it. During the Council of Elrond it is suggested that the Free-Peoples entrust the Ring to Tom, but this is rejected due to the probability that he would lose it, because according to Gandalf, such things had no hold on his mind. It is also stated that if Sauron were to regain the Ring, Tom Bombadil would be the last to fall. It is also stated by Galdor that 'Power to defy our enemy is not in him, unless such power is in the earth itself. And yet we see that Sauron can torture and destroy the very hills.' implying that Bombadil is in some way connected with the very earth itself.

      What an interesting idea! I wonder how such a thing would play out in say, Christian mythology? Unless humanity itself could be considered "outside the divine plan" by virtue of having been given free will by God. If that's the case, then this idea is already boring. But I like this idea, perhaps crudely explored in the Matrix trilogy, that there's someone who simply is, but is not a result of our being. Sure, God created the world and all upon it, its inhabitants and life, many and varied...but not this one thing. A separate consciousness, if you will, that can explore and investigate the universe created around it, but which had no part in its creation or purpose. I don't know where I'm going with this. I feel it, but I can't describe what I'm feeling. Maybe you felt it too :-)

WHERE MAH INTROVIGGAZ AT?

      Now I've been doing the online dating thing for over three months now. I have yet to secure a date but that is not the point of tonight's entry. No, what I've been wondering about is something I've noticed fairly early on but dismissed as an anomaly but now, after three months find it inescapable: where are all the introverts?

      And by "introverts", I'm also including those people who simply don't like going out under the assumption that that is an introverted tendency even if they have no social anxiety. I simply have not found them. They are either a truly rare breed or they are elsewhere...or maybe hiding behind lies on their profiles.

      The vast majority of profiles I encounter are written by women who claim to either love travelling and going out and doing so or they profess their desire to do so the moment their financial circumstances permit. Occasionally I'll see a line or two about staying in to catch a movie but it's a one-liner amongst many a sentence devoted to dining out, bar/club hopping, trying new things/foods/cultures, activities both done and desired to be done, places travelled to and places where she desires to travel in the future, how their jobs take up much of their day and that they love it, working out at the gym 3-7 days a week, going for a jog/run, reading this and that novel (often obscure), going to live shows to watch indie music (surprisingly few girls admit to liking popular music as if that were some sort of badge of dishonor)...basically no time for down time because they are always doing something or interested in portraying themselves as the always-doing-something type. I don't even know where they'd find the time to date to begin with, especially all the ones who list such activities in addition to the fact that they are also a parent.

      They're all go-getters. Many have post-graduate degrees or are otherwise over-educated. And they all like dogs. I don't know where this single lady with cats idea came from because the two sites I'm on are full of dog owners. I like cats! I don't want a fucking dog. I don't hate dogs but that doesn't mean I want to own one. Yes, cat owners exist, but it's not the 50/50 split you would expect. Though I have no evidence besides circumstantial, I really do suspect that cat-owners are more laid-back by nature seeing as how owning a cat is more a passive ownership as compared to a dog which needs to be walked multiple times daily and trained. And it may just be me, but I find dog owners tend to be intolerant. Not a truism, just an observation. It's much easier to find a dog owner who hates cats than to find a cat owner who hates dogs. I'm sure some psychological studies have been done on this.

      But the thing is, I can understand why these types are on dating sites: they are too busy doing things to meet new people through normal channels or they're not home enough to be out and about around town. Their presence online makes sense to me. But that being said, where are the people who have trouble meeting new people because they're home whenever they can be? Because they'd rather watch television or read than share some drinks over a game at a bar? Because they don't envy the clubbing scene? Because they prefer doing (usually quiet) solitary activities at home? Or simply because they have few friends? They must exist and in great numbers so why aren't they a presence on the dating sites I'm on?

       I would think the rise of online dating would be a boon to social misfits and eccentrics who would now have a means for advertising their availability to the wider world out there. Yet, I know I have stumbled upon a few, but not nearly as many I would think should exist. Am I really so rare? Have I been spoiled by friends who are largely hang-out-at-home types. Is my level of income related to my not-going-out-muchness? If so, do relatively poor people not use dating sites? Still, if laziness is supposedly endemic in society...where are they? Too lazy to create profiles? I guess I'll just have to try and lure them out myself...

FAME HYPOTHESIS

      A quick thing I've been meaning to write about for some time now, the Fame Hypothesis. What is it? Simply put, it's this idea I had which was inspired by Kim Kardashian and a co-worker's comment on her frequent magazine cover appearances. He wondered aloud if it was now illegal for a month to go by without her appearing on at least one magazine cover.

      The Fame Hypothesis is a mathematical expression that states that one's fame is inversely proportional to the amount of reminders needed to keep one famous (that is, in the public's mind). Some people are very famous: Paul McCartney, Lucille Ball, and Neil Armstrong for instance. Some people are not: Kim Kardashian, The Situation, and Colleen Haskell (if you said, "Who?" upon reading this...thank you for illustrating my point)

      The basic difference between the two is this: if Paul McCartney stepped out of the limelight and effectively disappeared much as Neil Armstrong has, he would still be remembered and revered for his work in The Beatles just as anyone, even people who hadn't even been born when it happened, know that Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the Moon. Neil Armstrong is a notorious recluse and still, over forty years after the fact remains supremely famous for that one act and he will be forever enshrined in public memory like Christopher Columbus and Napoléon long after he has died. There are just some people who are just that famous.

       If you didn't have magazines constantly reminding you of the existence of Kim Kardashian, how quickly do you think you would forget her? Her fame, like plutonium, is unstable and without constant reinforcement, would be lost to the ages. People being born now will not know who the fuck Kim Kardashian is when they are old enough to ask that question...if they ask that question. The Jersey Shore will merely be a destination to them and Paris Hilton will sound like a hotel in Paris, France.

       As far as I am concerned, the more frequent the reminders needed, the more unstable your fame is. Whatever true fame is, it is doled out infrequently and certainly not repetitively (Quick! Who was the third man to have walked on the Moon?). I suppose the same applies to people in general: the more one needs to be reminded of you, the less famous (i.e. important) to them you are...

______________________________________
The answer is Charles "Pete" Conrad

SINGLE SEX EDUCATION IS STUPID, BUT THIS MIGHT NOT BE...

       The New York Times ran an article on single sex education again recently in which the idea of educating boys and girls in separate classes was declared ineffective and even detrimental in the long run. I'll admit I used to be an advocate of this type of education. It made sense to me as I felt that boys and girls learned differently and that those learning styles ought to be taken into account when educating our nation's youth. But over the years, I would have sporadic arguments with friends on this topic and through these discussions, I have been made to see that my initial thoughts on the subject were ultimately baseless. I still favor segregated education, but no longer on the basis of sex, but on the basis of learning styles.

      Through arguments with friends, it came to our collective attention that there existed a root difference in the styles of learning: competitive versus cooperative. It was merely sexism that asserted boys were competitive and girls, cooperative in their respective learning styles. Now while this assertion may have some factual basis in that perhaps more than 50% of all boys are competitive learners and more than 50% of all girls are cooperative learners, it fails to account for the rest and punishing their minds on the basis of a chromosome was deemed unfair.

       I'm not sure how best to go about this, but since schools are divided traditionally into elementary, middle, and high, they might be sorted out in the middle of the educational years. I was thinking that everyone is taught together in elementary school and teachers would be additionally charged with noting which students showed strengths in each of the learning styles in each of their subjects. When they've graduated to middle school, they would be separated in accordance to their styles. These students would not be put in different buildings...I would never want that and no student would necessarily be in all of one type of learning style class either. I personally might have fared better in competitive environments for subjects I showed aptitude with (the sciences and history) and cooperative environments in those subjects which I was weaker (mathematics and literature). High school would also continue in this vein, but I was also thinking a mission of middle schools would be for teachers to identify subject strengths in their students so that their high school education would focus more heavily on those elements (while still providing for a decent liberal arts education).

      If only 30% of all students go on to graduate from college then a high school education must be sufficient to prepare the remaining 70% of those students for the workforce (minus that percentage, whatever it is, that move on to vocational schools). But that is another topic. Let me avoid rambling for once :-)

      One point of this segregated education is that I still want the students to co-mingle. I'm guessing lunchtime and recess (and maybe gym class too since both cooperation and competitiveness are necessary to succeed in sports) would be opportune times. It's bad enough that the social classes tend to no longer mix at any level, I would not want student bodies to suffer that fate as well.

      I would think such a separation of learning styles would prove advantageous to both types allowing the competitive types not to feel suppressed by the system and for the cooperative types not to feel stressed or left behind. Both styles of learning are of benefit to society and I'm sure you can imagine times when competitiveness is best and other times when cooperation is the ideal skill set to possess. That is all...

THOUGHTS I NORMALLY KEEP IN MY HEAD, part VIII

      The MUZAK station at work was playing Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" the other night. Yeah, yeah, I know, the song sounds an awful lot like "Express Yourself" by Madonna, but that's not what I was thinking about as it played. The song is a gay anthem, the latest on what I am sure is a long list. But I got to thinking... doesn't the gay community have enough anthems from the pop music category? The gay community's rather accepted in the places that listen to Lady Gaga. The inroads they need to be making are in the mid-west and southern parts of this country. Wouldn't it be better to have Country/Western gay anthems in an effect to spread kindness and acceptance throughout the country instead of merely limiting it to the coastlines and cities? I dunno and then again, it's not like I can be helpful here and offer up just such a song with a strong likelihood of going mainstream (for Country/Western audiences at least). Whatever, enjoy some Lady Gaga...

SAD BUT TRUE...

      I've been hearing Adele's song "Rolling in the Deep" for a couple of months now and I really like it. It sounds like a soulful ballad straight out of the 1960s. This song would fit in perfectly on CBS-FM as a long "lost" hit that is finally getting its much-deserved airtime. Today, however, is the first day I actually watched the video on YouTube because, despite having heard the song many times before, I never actually learned its title.

      Adele sings beautifully and I can only hope that this song was actually a composition of hers since I would very much like to believe she is more than a voice. But the one thing that makes me want to listen to her more is the very thing she is being made fun of for and that is, her weight.

      Now, normally for me, music is purely an aural experience. I don't actually care what the musicians/bands I've listened to look like because really, who gives a fuck? You're supposed to LISTEN to music, not watch it despite what Mtv taught a generation of young Americans. Adele is overweight, but not fat, and for this she is derided and I don't really don't understand that at all. While in real life, I'm incredibly biased against fat and overweight people (especially women since I want to be attracted to them), in music, it's about the SOUND, not the look. Mama Cass, of The Mamas and The Papas fame, is no pleasure to look at, but one listen to "Make Your Own Kind of Music" and her cover of "Dream a Little Dream" and your ears are in love. That being said, Adele's voice (at least in "Rolling in the Deep" - I have yet to venture forth into her catalog) is fucking amazing and I'm glad to have been able to have heard it.

       One thing that has bugged me about music, and I'm sure this has been true since the beginning and not just the advent of Mtv, is the emphasis of the look over the sound. For me, in music, if you're more concerned about your looks and image than your sound, you're doing it wrong. If you happen to be handsome or hot, hey, great for you. By all means, revel in that coincidence. The trouble is, I highly doubt the incredible coincidences present in music, especially female musicians. Wow, you're all hot, really? That tells you something must be wrong. I'm not saying none of these women (and the occasional prettyboy) aren't talented or at least competent singers, but really? No fat and/or ugly people have any talent in this world to share with us? And in the one medium where they need not be judged for their appearance on top of that? Go fuck yourselves music industry.

       That being said, in a perverse way, I am glad Adele is not some skinny white chick strutting her stuff in skimpy outfits belting out a tune like that. I'd still like the song, but I'd be skeptical of her. The sad thing, we all know the many obstacles set before Adele before she could get a recording contract simply because of her weight and I imagine she must be facing enormous pressures to lose that weight now that she's suddenly popular/famous. I'm not calling her a "real woman" or "big and beautiful" because I don't believe in any of that shit. It's not a coincidence that the only people who are telling you that beauty is more than skin deep are obviously flawed in some way. I don't mean to imply that I only care about looks. Far from it, intelligence and personality matter even more in the end because of the three, only looks fade. However, beauty is certainly not fat...at least not in a country of plenty. If food were hard to come by, a woman who were fat would most certainly be attractive, nay hot. However, when food in plentiful and cheap, remaining skinny in the face of overwhelming temptation is the more attractive option.

       Anyhow, the sad thing is, because Adele is overweight, she has greater credibility in an industry that hasn't had a genuine movement since Grunge in the early 1990s. American Idol is not credible music and does everything it can to convince people that music is about appearances over sound. I only watched American Idol when someone else was watching, but I made it a point to never actually watch the contestants singing. I wanted to LISTEN to them because that's what music is all about...LISTENING. It's sad that because of Adele's weight, she must therefore be talented...perhaps way more so than most female singers you've heard as of late. It's pleasing to know that no agency probably wanted to give her a recording contract and yet were so overwhelmed by her raw talent that they had no choice. I can only hope Adele's future work does not disappoint.




"Rolling in the Deep" by Adele

FEEDING THE TROLLS...

      A common trolling post besides the ever popular "Atheism vs. Christianity" posts, is one making fun of the seemingly bizarre and ineffective Imperial* measurement system versus that of the Metric system.

One of the zillions of examples out there (click to enlarge)

DESIGNATED ASSHOLE

      This is something I have thought about for some time but don't know if I can successfully describe it. I've had this thought before Digby came onto the scene though she's helped keep it in the forefront lately. It's this idea that we all have a touch of evil within us, regardless of how good or well-behaved we are. It's definitely related to the desire to say or do inappropriate things in formalized or ritualistic settings like at a funeral or wedding. Maybe it's just me since I have this extreme balancing desire within me. Maybe you only have these thoughts if you're a negotiator or compromiser by nature, I don't know. I just can't stand anything going too far to either extreme. But then, it may be a very old behavior indeed. After all, the universe itself was formed and continues to be shaped by instabilities within otherwise ordered media. It may be a truly primeval feeling...to use a touch of chaos to bring about changes to an otherwise static event or existence. Anyways...

      One of the things about Digby that keeps my mood crashing into the ground is how EVERYONE at work (and that may not actually be an exaggeration) gets to talk and laugh with her; how she'll dedicate a little time each night she's there to talk to each and every one of them (some longer than others); how she'll say goodnight to everyone (and for some, she'll hug them as well)...but not me. I'm treated like I don't exist...as though acknowledging my existence would be beneath her. And while it's safe to say there is a more reasonable explanation for this, I can't help but feel like I'm the designated asshole of this situation.

      What do I mean by this? It's this idea that, no one person could ever be totally nice to everyone...as though to be nice to all without exception would result in a kind of psychic sickness that could only be remedied by behaving exactly oppositely, thus destroying (or at least severely damaging) many friendships and relationships, if the negative pressure (psychic energy, whatever...I don't care what you call it) building up were not released. But the thing is, it has to be genuine. You can't be an asshole to someone who deserves it because that doesn't destroy the impulse. Being an asshole to someone who deserves it is just. It doesn't negate the impulse within. To rid oneself of this disturbance requires a victim.

       Now, you probably don't want your friends, family, lover(s) to see you like this so it has to be someone outside those groups or at least only peripherally attached. Maybe you're heckling a comedian onstage or teasing a baby or being rude to a waiter/waitress or whatever, but the point is, you need to someone for whom you know your assholery will (or at least could) hurt otherwise there will be no satisfaction for this urge. In my sadness, I feel Digby has made me her Designated Asshole. I bring the necessary balance to her mind so that she can continue to be friendly and warm with everyone else. She knows she hurts me and it delights that part of her which needs such callousness. Hurray?

       I know I've done this myself...probably more times than I would like to admit. This may be where my psychologically damaged mind comes in, I'm thinking. I'm used to being left alone and being unwanted so woe be to those few who try to get through...especially if they are weak-willed. Nothing like a soft target upon whom to heap undeserved scorn reaped from mental fields sown with bitterness and envy, right? It's so perverse really. When I tell people that I reward persistence, I tend to leave out the part where I'm gonna be anywhere from a bit to quite an asshole toward you. But persist and eventually I'll come around; feel guilty about my treatment of you; and that guilt, being an unstable emotion like hope, will decay into loyalty (or regret if you actually don't put up with my bullshit...which you probably shouldn't. I mean, afterall, why reward my assholery regardless of knowing I'm pretty much yours forever if you do? It's a pretty shitty way to go about things).

       How sad to have become so prejudiced that I cannot accept the idea that someone would or even could, actually like me, want me, spend time with me, fuck me, etc. Cuz that's always good, y'know, to push away someone who's just trying to love me because I have this insane "need" to prove to myself that my pursuer's feelings are for real. It makes sense in its own stupid way, I suppose. To me, if you really liked me, you would keep trying because, well, that's what I do. I hate flaky people. What? Because I didn't smile back or I barely acknowledged your existence when you meekly said hello to me, that means I don't like you and that you no longer like me or at least feel you should no longer try? Even just thinking about this now is infuriating me and I'm just being conceptual. It doesn't even make sense to me. How can you say you like someone if a mere setback is enough for you to call off the chase? Unless you're told "No" or it would be inappropriate to continue (like they have a boy/girlfriend, are married, or are gay), why give up? And I feel compelled to keep doing it this way because loyalty matters to me...like, a lot. Understand, I don't mean unquestioning loyalty because that's just stupid. I mean the kind of loyalty where you don't ...well, I guess like the traditional marriage vows. You stick with that person in sickness and health, whether wealthy or poor, through good times and bad. I need a compelling reason to surrender, not a bullshit one. I need someone I know I can depend on when it matters because anyone can be there for you when the weather's fair.

       Eh, my focus has clearly drifted. What else is new with this stupid blog? I'll just leave it like this and hope there's a nugget of sense somewhere within it for whomever is actually bothering to read this shit. Such is my mind - a chaos of partially formed ideas, bizarre thoughts, and an inability to accept that others could actually give a fuck even when it's unmissably right there in front of me...

INIMANDVS VIII

      Being mad and sad at the same time is always an odd experience which gives birth to thoughts I did not know I was capable of having. It bugs the shit out of me that my creativity is so locked with these down states. The feelings are so self-destructive, yet I'm in awe of their occasional brilliance. This down state produced nothing brilliant, but it was an interesting thought nonetheless...to me anyway.

      Digby is the highly volatile fuel currently powering these states. Again I find myself wishing suffering on her which I admit bothers me. I mean, how can I claim to be in love with her if I am actively wanting her to pay for her perceived sins? I am fast walking up to the abyss that will become the official dividing line of both my crush on her and the sheer amount of my life I have wasted trying to get a girl I want to want me. I am currently about three months away from it being twenty years since the first girl I wanted, Patient Zero, rejected me. This milestone should be an insignificant one, merely a footnote in one's personal history, but since she would actually be the first in a series of unbroken rejections, it has come to be a representative symbol of just how much of a loser I am and continue to be. I feel myself scrambling for something, anything that will allow me to rationalize the past four years as not a waste but I cannot see how that could be done.

      Digby has served to reinforce my feelings of ugliness and while some of you might object to this assessment, I stand by the notion that "If nobody wants you, it's the same as being ugly." Digby has reinforced the feeling in me that I am outranked by everyone and by that I mean not only with her specifically --- believe me, it hurts me to no end to see EVERYONE I work with talk to her all buddy-buddy like (I thought that was an exaggerated observation made in sadness, but I have yet to see anyone I work with not talk and laugh with her). There's not one person who loves me more than her. They all know how much I am hurt by her, but not a single one has shunned her for my sake. That's not something you can ask for or even demand from friends, it has to spontaneously happen such an act of solidarity but God-forbid they not get their chance to bask in her glory. Believe me, I understand the desire...I still feel it daily but am denied it. I suffer alone in a kind of Purgatory, forced to endure an existence whereby I must abide an absence of her affection and approval all the while remembering what it once felt like to have (however briefly back in April 2008). I wish I mattered enough that hurting me would result in some, if not all, of the people I consider friends or allies shunning the one who hurt me but that will never happen.

      But the other aspect I was alluding to is akin to the three-body problem in physics. If it is just me and one other person in the room, that person will talk to me and engage me in conversation. However, add a third person to the mix, no matter who that person is, and I will become the odd-man out. I'm never more important than another. I have yet to find an exception to this...even when I am with my Best Friend (though to her credit, she won't practically forget I am even there). It's like no one notices or they don't care that I am no longer speaking. Add a fourth person, and those three will form a group which I will be (almost) completely shut out of. Understand, this isn't maliciously done on their part (I hope!)...it's just what happens. It's a very lonely feeling... I admit I am weak when it comes to conversational skills but it remains nevertheless, a lonely feeling.

     On a simpler note, Digby reinforced the notion that I am not worth being told "No" to; that I am not enough of a human being to be afforded that basic courtesy. And yes, I get it, it's not an easy thing to do but if you're not interested, you HAVE to tell the person asking you out especially if the man asking you out is lonely and feels he lacks options. Every day you don't tell him you're definitely not interested (none of this 99.99% shit either because that 0.01% WILL be clung to) is another day strengthening the emotional connection to you. And you certainly don't agree to go out on a date, stand me up, apologize saying that you'll make it up to me, agree to go out with me again, and subsequently stand me up again. I believe that Digby and I are compatible. I'd be at a loss as to how exactly to plot that out on a chart or graph or how to produce conclusive evidence of it. I hate relying on the "understanding" of it that I claim but I don't know what else to say. I know it's a fairly rare feeling and it's occasionally frustrating. There's a woman I work with whose twelve years my senior that I also know would be good for me (whether I would be good for her is an open question) and I would totally go for her if she weren't married and with four kids. But not every girl I've wanted has produced these feelings.

      Some of my crushes were admittedly strongly lustful, a couple were rather fanciful. That's the way it goes. But I have walked away from girls I've wanted. Rabbit just might be the most beautiful girl I've ever seen, even more than The First One, but the more I spoke to her, the more I understood that it would never work and it hurts for me to admit that because goddamn is she hot. I cannot even begin to fathom the amount of win she would represent as a compatible (and more importantly willing) girlfriend. It's arguable Digby came to this same conclusion before I asked her out, but remember, she never told me no. It sucks walking away, but I think it important that I mention that this does happen.

      However all this depressing shit led to me wondering if it were possible to mathematically determine one's attractiveness because another one of those dark realizations I had was that I have been working in my store now for ten years. I have easily worked with about a thousand girls (yes, some would have to be discounted due to age/marital status). Not a single one has ever expressed interest in me and not a single one I have been interested in has ever reciprocated it. And this is to say nothing of the likely tens of thousands of female customers (same restrictions as the workplace ones) I've had over those years as well but I won't count them for this argument though I probably should since two of my customers did flirt with me for a little while before the one rejected me and the other moved on. When I was in college, I had three girls take an interest in me, all of whom were ultimately rejected whether the reasoning was sound or not (mostly not...I was an idiot, I admit it and handled them all poorly).

      What I was thinking was you get your attractiveness or Desirability Index (in the form of a percentage) by taking the ratio of the [(number of girls who accepted me ÷ number of girls I've wanted) + (number of girls who have petitioned me ÷ estimated available local population)] / 2.

      So my tentative numbers from college would be [0 + 3/4000*] / 2 which would give me a Desirability Index of .000375 or approximately 4 hundredths of a percent. This number is entirely unfair I admit and in sore need of refining. I guess a better number for the latter argument would be assuming a percentage of the local population based on the number of girls I actually wanted (even if only a little). Let's say that number is 30. Now it's safe to say that I would accept more girls who expressed an interest in me than I would accept if I were the one doing all the work. But what should that factor be? Two, three, four? I'll say four in that I believe that there are four times as many girls I would give a chance to if only they would ask for one versus the number of girls I'm willing to take a chance myself. Using that metric, my Desirability Index improves to [0 + 3/120] / 2 which would make my DI** 1¼% which is better but still quite shitty.

      Well, it's getting late (for me anyways). I must go cook dinner. If this stupid idea has potential, I'll elaborate on it upon request though odds are, I'll explore it on my own without prompt. Good day reader(s)!

______________________________________________________________
* student population of my college is listed at approximately 8000 students. I'm assuming a 50/50 split of the sexes to get 4000 potentials.

** calling it DI makes it sound hipper.